[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Timing of input-method output

From: Stefan Monnier
Subject: Re: Timing of input-method output
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:12:22 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)

> I've done a bit more work on this and come up with a much simpler
> solution which is specificially plumbed into quail. It looks like this:
> modified   lisp/international/quail.el
> @@ -59,6 +59,10 @@ quail
>    "Quail: multilingual input method."
>    :group 'leim)
> +
> +(defvar quail-pre-translation-hook nil
> +  "Normal hook run before quail starts or updates a translation.")
> +
>  ;; Buffer local variables
>  (defvar quail-current-package nil
> @@ -1548,6 +1552,7 @@ quail-update-translation
>  `quail-current-key'.  If CONTROL-FLAG is nil, proceed the translation
>  with more keys."
>    (let ((func (quail-update-translation-function)))
> +    (run-hooks 'quail-pre-translation-hook)
>      (if func
>       (setq control-flag (funcall func control-flag))
>        (cond ((numberp control-flag)

This looks pretty good, but I'd like to better understand why this
works well.  I.e. how did you end up putting it there rather than elsewhere?

> pre-command-hook is current run by "safe_run_hooks". Does
> `quail-pre-translation-hook' need to be as well (in which case, it would
> need uncovering in lisp)? I guess the counter here is that it's possible
> to get out so long as you don't type certain characters, or you change
> buffer. But, it leaves emacs fairly unusuable none the less.

IIUC C-\ should get you out, so I don't think it's necessary to take any
extra caution here.

> And, where do you think I should document it? Perhaps "Invoking the
> Input Method";

That's probably the best place.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]